CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ8266893
Regular
May 21, 2013

ALI JIRDE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - DISTRICT 6, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on March 29, 2013, more than 20 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision was personally served on March 6, 2013. As the decision was personally served, the five-day mailing extension under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 did not apply. The WCAB noted that timely filing is jurisdictional and therefore lacked the power to grant the untimely petition. However, defendants retain the option to file a Petition to Reopen.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitPersonal ServiceMailing ExtensionLabor Code Section 5903WCAB Rule 10507Petition to ReopenWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ's Report and Recommendation
References
7
Case No. ADJ11350389
Regular
Sep 23, 2025

JOSE PEREZ LEDESMA, Marjorie Martinez Interpreting vs. RUIZ & SON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that ruled a notice to produce was an invalid discovery mechanism. The WCAB found that California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10642 expressly permits the use of notices to produce in workers' compensation proceedings, similar to Civil Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b). Therefore, the defendant was ordered to produce the relevant interpreter payment and Explanation of Review documents requested by the cost petitioner. This decision emphasizes the system's intent for a simple and nontechnical path to relief, allowing authorized discovery methods.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationNotice to ProduceSubpoenaWCJRemovalLabor CodeCode of Civil ProcedureRule 10642Explanation of Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. Deka Realty Corp.

This appellate opinion addresses the proper assessment of contempt sanctions and civil penalties against Deka Realty Corp. for numerous housing code violations. The court clarifies that civil contempt fines must compensate aggrieved tenants for actual damages, not be based on a multiplication of statutory maximums per violation, and remits for a damages hearing. Criminal contempt fines, intended to vindicate court authority, were reduced to $1,000 per contemnor. The court also held that while serious monetary sanctions can trigger a constitutional right to a jury trial, Deka Realty Corp. waived this right by failing to make a timely demand. Civil penalties against Deka were also reduced.

Contempt sanctionsCivil penaltiesHousing code violationsJury trial rightJudiciary LawCivil contempt finesCriminal contempt finesConsent decreeLandlord-tenant disputeDue process
References
56
Case No. BGN 63300; BGN 63301 BGN 63302; BGN 63303
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

HARDISTENE HOWARD vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, RTD; TRAVELERS

The applicant filed a "Petition the Court for Judge Dismissal" alleging a violation of Labor Code section 5312 by the Workers' Compensation Judge. The Board treated this as a petition for disqualification, but dismissed it because it lacked the required affidavit of disqualification and did not state grounds for disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 641.

Petition for disqualificationLabor Code section 5311Petition for removalLabor Code section 5310WCAB Rule 10452Mandatory settlement conferenceWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardUnrepresented applicantProof of service
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 1991

Bonilla v. New York City Civil Service Commission

In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner challenged a determination disqualifying him from a civil service eligible list for a sanitation worker position due to a psychiatric disorder. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition, citing the petitioner's failure to commence the proceeding before the eligible list expired. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, relying on established case law such as Matter of Deas v Levitt, which mandates dismissal if a challenge to an eligible list determination is not initiated prior to the list's expiration. This ruling emphasizes the procedural requirement for timely legal action concerning civil service eligible lists.

Civil Service LawEligible ListDisqualificationPsychiatric DisorderNervous BreakdownTimeliness of PetitionExpiration of Eligible ListProcedural DismissalJudicial ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
12
Case No. ADJ6905239
Regular
Oct 07, 2025

ROBERT GARRISON vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES, SEDGWICK CMS

The applicant filed a petition seeking to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to alleged bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition, along with the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. The Board determined that the petition did not establish valid grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, citing that expressions of opinion in official duties or erroneous rulings do not constitute bias. Consequently, the WCAB denied the applicant's petition for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ BiasLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641Unqualified OpinionState of Mind Evincing EnmityWCAB Rule 10960Affidavit or DeclarationTimely Filing
References
10
Case No. SAC 0315585
Regular
Sep 18, 2007

Bradley Dorigo vs. State of California, Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

This case concerns the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund's (SIF) liability for an applicant's vocational rehabilitation counselor fees. The Appeals Board affirmed a prior award requiring SIF to reimburse a portion of the vocational expert's fees, despite SIF's arguments that it was not liable for such costs. The Board cited prior writ-denied cases and relevant statutes, including Code of Civil Procedure section 1028 and Labor Code section 5708, to support its decision.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundVocational rehabilitation expertLabor Code section 4751Compromise and releaseStipulated awardPermanent disabilityReimbursementWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeCode of Civil Procedure section 1028
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. (Debtors) initiated an adversary proceeding against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) seeking to avoid certain fee payments as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The CPUC moved to dismiss the action, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the CPUC's motion, concluding that the court holds in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's property in a preference action. The Court determined that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not offend state sovereignty, citing various forms of potential relief available, including the disallowance of claims by other California state instrumentalities.

Bankruptcy LawSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentIn Rem JurisdictionPreference ActionMotion to DismissPublic Utilities CommissionCalifornia Environmental Quality ActDebtor-Creditor RelationsFederal Jurisdiction
References
45
Case No. SFO 406432
Regular
Apr 09, 2008

VANCOIS D'AMOUN vs. PACIUFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The petition failed to meet the 20-day statutory deadline under Labor Code § 5903, plus the additional 5 days for mailing under Code of Civil Procedure §1013, and was not filed in the correct office. Consequently, the WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report and ordered the petition dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10840Lab. Code §5903Code of Civil Procedure §1013untimelydismissReport and Recommendationadministrative law judgeworkers' compensationapplicant
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,515 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational